§ 45. Mr. Mossasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on nuclear and allied radiations, incorporating the latest information.
§ 47. Mr. Masonasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the recent increase in radioactive fall-out over the United Kingdom; to what extent this is attributable to the Russian ground tests and the American test series, "Project Argus"; and to what extent this increased radioactivity may prove injurious to health.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)I would refer the hon. Members to my statement of 28th April on radioactive fall-out.
§ Mr. MossIs the Prime Minister aware that his statement of last week was confined to radioactive fall-out and 220 recent information which is available on fall-out in general? Has he considered the letter which I sent to him on Wednesday of last week in which I gave him exact references to the United Nations Report, to the Report of the Medical Research Council and to Command Paper 508? Is he aware that the Medical Research Council has accepted the view that the genetic effects of radiation are proportional, that there is no threshold dose below which there are no ill effects and that all addition to the radiation level is undesirable from the genetic point of view?
The Prime Minister: I circulated this long report at the request of hon. Members and I will try to answer detailed questions arising out of it. Paragraphs 2, 7, 9, 11 and 13 are particularly relevant to some of the points raised in these Questions. Meanwhile, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the detail comes in reply to a later Question which may not be reached today but which may be tabled again. The proportions between the different kinds of radiation to which mankind may be subjected are roughly these. One hundred from existing natural radiation in the world—the inevitable, ineluctable radiation to which ever since creation man has been subjected; about 22 in the United Kingdom from medical X-rays and things of that kind, and various industrial processes, like wrist watches; and between one and two as a result of nuclear fall-out.
§ Mr. BevanWill the Prime Minister inquire from the Medical Research Council to what extent its Report is based upon the threshold idea that above a certain limit radioactive substances are dangerous and below a certain limit they are innocuous? Many scientists say that this conception is entirely ill-founded, but that, as organisms are differently sensitive to radioactive situations, any increase in the radioactive background must increase the fatalities or injuries to living organisms.
§ The Prime MinisterThere is a specific Question on this matter later to which I will reply if it is reached or if it is deferred. There is a question on this so-called threshold theory, but, broadly speaking, the fact remains that since man came into being he has bean subjected to something of the order of 100—in some 221 places it is more because of the special conditions—by natural radiation. It is something of the order of 22 from manmade radiation during the last 50 or 80 years in the United Kingdom and more in the United States where medical radiology is more advanced and more used. It is possibly between one and two as a result of nuclear radiation. Without minimising the importance of what we are trying to do at Geneva to get rid of the tests, I think that the House and the country should have those figures in mind and should keep them ha perspective.
§ Mr. BevanThis is an extremely important aspect of the matter and I should like to follow it up by asking the right hon. Gentleman another supplementary question. It is unfortunate that we shall not reach the other Questions today. All the time we are having statements from the Government to say that at present, in the opinion of their advisers, the fallout is not dangerous or does not require immediate attention. At the same time, they say that there is a rise in the incidence of strontium 90 and in carbon and in caesium. If there is a rise, it would appear to the layman that as people are differently sensitive to this kind of radiation, there must be an increase in the incidence of sickness and of death arising from it and that, therefore, this completely invalidates what many of us on a priori grounds consider to be the threshold conception.
§ The Prime MinisterIf we take the figures of 100, 22 and something between 1 and 2, we get the matter in perspective. It is difficult for science to make these experiments, but many are being made. If it is asked what is the threshold and whether it can be absolutely laid down, the answer at present is that it is not possible. When we consider, however, that by merely existing in the world, even if all forms of medical radiology and all the rest were abolished, man is subjected to a figure of about 100, how is it that the human race has survived?
§ The Prime MinisterI have been carefully into this and I regret that we do not have time for the details. Perhaps the other Questions will be taken another day. The most likely suggestion to meet this fact is that the human race has, 222 in this case, as, indeed, with other pressures to which it is liable, been able by its recuperative powers to establish an equilibrium with the mutants.
§ Dr. SummerskillWhile the Prime Minister has told the House what is the natural radiation, is he aware that what we are concerned with is the man-made radiation which is being added to the natural radiation? The Prime Minister has avoided the point that the threat is cumulative. He will recall that I have asked him the same question three times. He is avoiding the whole question of genetic change. Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that last week the most eminent scientists said that there was no threshold below which there cannot be a genetic change, and, indeed, the concentration of radiation in the air now is sufficient to cause those changes? Will the Prime Minister arrange to give us more records of this kind, which at present the country is lacking, concerning spontaneous abortions, the malformed foetus or the degree of sterility? Will he have a periodic survey of the situation?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sorry that some of the Questions have not been reached. For example, there is Question No. 55, to which I would have given a reply. I said, however, that I did not propose to answer supplementary questions on these matters off the cuff if I could avoid it, because I have gone most carefully into the replies and spent several hours with my advisers going through them. The Questions can either be deferred and asked again or they can be answered in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The general and broad answer, however, is that if, as I hope, we are able at Geneva to reach an agreement abolishing tests, the human race will still be subjected always to 100. What is perhaps the most important question—the Report is only out today and I have not had time to study it—is that there remains the very big question of man-made radiation for medical and industrial reasons.
§ Mr. MasonWill the right hon. Gentleman now reply to the last pant of Question No. 47 and say to what extent this increased radioactivity may prove injurious to health, particularly having in mind that paragraph 12 of the Report states there was a noticeable increase of strontium 90 in children's bones—that 223 is to say, in the bones of children examined last year and taking no account of the increase which has occurred this year—and that that is the real increase from the doubling of strontium 90? Does not the Prime Minister feel concerned that this may prove injurious, particularly to the health of young children?
§ The Prime MinisterWe are very concerned. Strontium 90 produces radiation. Some people seem to think that it is quite different from radiation, but it simply produces it. If the hon. Member studies paragraphs 2, 7, 9, 11 and 13 of my statement of last week he will find the answer.
§ Mr. GaitskellCan the Prime Minister clear up at least one point? He said that the strontium 90 produced radiation. Are we, therefore, to take it that the right hon. Gentleman's Answer to the Question concerning radiation—that the proportions between natural radiation, man-made radiation and nuclear tests were 100, 22 and 1—also applies to strontium 90? What difference is made to these figures by the fact that, according to the Prime Minister's own statement, the amount of strontium 90 deposited in the United Kingdom in one year has doubled?
§ The Prime MinisterStrontium 90 was released by the nuclear tests. It produces radiation and it also is of a rather lasting character and, therefore, differs from some other forms of radiation. The answer, I think, is broadly that, so far as the health viewpoint is concerned, there is nothing which has yet happened which causes anxiety to my advisers. There is a much greater degree of danger in certain parts of the world, arising partly from other causes. That is not to say that I am not very anxious to reach agreement by which this addition, small as it is, could be discontinued.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Mr. Heath.
§ Mr. BeswickOn a point of order. The Prime Minister has stated that he is unable to answer certain supplementary questions "off the cuff", as he calls it—I quite understand his difficulty—and he has invited further Questions to be put down. The point I wish to put, Mr. Speaker, is that we are in some difficulty when we come to phrase Questions for the Order Paper. If it is attempted to 224 phrase a Question posing precisely what we have in mind, endeavouring to get a very narrow point put over, we are up against the rule of order that we are continuing a debate. I have had several Questions turned down when endeavouring to get a particular point cleared up because they have been held to contravene that rule.
As the Prime Minister, quite understandably—I appreciate what he said—has referred to the difficulty of replying to some of these Questions off the cuff, I wonder whether the rule concerning Questions might be interpreted a little broadly on this subject, as it is a difficult one to overcome.
§ The Prime MinisterBefore you answer that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that there are on the Order Paper today a number of Questions of a quite detailed nature to which I have, with my advisers, prepared replies with great care. The difficulty is not so much the phrasing of the Questions as the fact that they have not been reached.
§ Mr. GaitskellFurther to that point of order. In view of the Prime Minister's statement, would it not be for the convenience of the House if, on Thursday, the Prime Minister would make a full statement covering all these other points so that they may be dealt with together?
§ The Prime MinisterI made a long statement which was published in HANSARD last week. Then, I suggested that detailed Questions arising from it might be put upon the Order Paper. The only trouble today is that the Questions have not been reached. If, however, we had had 15 or 20 minutes on them I do not think there would have been any difficulty.
§ Mr. GaitskellTo avoid the situation which arose today and might easily arise again on Thursday because of the position of the Prime Minister's Questions, may I suggest that these difficulties could be overcome if the Prime Minister will kindly agree to make a statement after Questions on Thursday covering these other points?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is quite impossible. I could lump all these statements and put them together, but they are on all kinds of different aspects of this question and it would be far better 225 to deal with them in a number of Questions. It was just by chance that these Questions were not reached today.
§ Mr. SpeakerThey are usually reached but they have not been reached today, although I did my best and perhaps disappointed many hon. Members by not calling on them for supplementary questions. As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), it is an essential rule of Questions that they should seek information and be definite so that they can be answered. Debate is quite another sphere of our activities. I do not know whether it would suit the desire of the Leader of the Opposition if there were some Motion or something which we could discuss in the proper way. My trouble about a statement after Questions is that it would lead to an irregular debate, with no Question before the House, and that might lead to many inconveniences and go on for a time which the House perhaps might not have desired. If all these things can be thought about we may obtain an answer to the difficulties which arise.